dwccrew;968171 wrote:That is exactly what I said....to bring a criminal indictment.
dwccrew;968171 wrote:What I said is that the facts from the GJ can prove that Sandusky was raping children
My point is that those aren't close to the same thing.
Yes, it's a "fact finding body". But it's a fact finding body that requires no qualifications, no burden of proof (the probable cause standard is not proof that a crime was actually committed, which is fine because they aren't judging innocence or guilt), and can only base its findings on the information the prosecution chooses to make available.
Even if you do want to view everything the grand jury found as "fact", it still doesn't negate the fact that it only includes the information the prosecution chose to include. It may not have even included all of the evidence/testimony the prosecution will use to make it's case, let alone all of the facts period.
dwccrew;968180 wrote:Also, you could have quoted my entire post instead of cutting that sentence short. I said:
It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children and all we need to indict.
It is a slam dunk case for the prosecution. Only Marcia Clark could fuck this case up.
Meaning it is a fact finding inquiry that will determine whether there is enough facts to bring a criminal indictment. What don't you get? It has all the facts we need to determine that Sandusky was raping children
I did include the part about having enough facts to bring an indictment. I just didn't feel it was necessary to copy it twice. Sorry for that.
Anyway, my point wasn't that Sandusky didn't do it (way too much smoke to not be a pretty huge fire) or how easy the case will be to prosecute.
I was trying to point out that was presented to the grand jury is nowhere near all of the facts. I was more referring to the people other than Sandusky. The ones who weren't being investigated - Schultz, Curley, Paterno, McQueary, McQueary's dad, Spanier, the board, other coaches, etc.
